linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190525070826.16f76ee7@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Sat, 25 May 2019 07:08:26 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs

On Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:44 -0400
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:

> > I guess the difference between the _raw_notrace and just _raw variants
> > is that _notrace ones do a rcu_check_sparse(). Don't we want to keep
> > that check?  
> 
> This is true.
> 
> Since the users of _raw_notrace are very few, is it worth keeping this API
> just for sparse checking? The API naming is also confusing. I was expecting
> _raw_notrace to do fewer checks than _raw, instead of more. Honestly, I just
> want to nuke _raw_notrace as done in this series and later we can introduce a
> sparse checking version of _raw if need-be. The other option could be to
> always do sparse checking for _raw however that used to be the case and got
> changed in http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-afs/2016-July/001016.html

What if we just rename _raw to _raw_nocheck, and _raw_notrace to _raw ?

-- Steve